Energy 145 (2018) 38e51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Multi-generation system incorporated with PEM electrolyzer and dual

ORC based on biomass gasification waste heat recovery: Exergetic,
economic and environmental impact optimizations
Fateme Ahmadi Boyaghchi a, *, Mansoure Chavoshi a, Vajiheh Sabeti b
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Alzahra University, Deh-Vanak, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Alzahra University, Deh-Vanak, Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, a multi-generation system comprising a dual organic Rankine cycle equipped with an
Available online 28 December 2017 ejector refrigeration loop, a biomass gasification process and a proton exchange membrane electrolyzer
is developed to produce the syngas, power, refrigeration effect, heating load, hydrogen and oxygen.
Keywords: R245fa-R134a, R236fa-R1234yf and R600-R290 are applied as three organic working fluid groups inside
Gasification process the dual organic Rankine cycle. The system concerned is modeled using the exergy, exergoeconomic and
Hydrogen production
exergoenvironmental analyses. An elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm is individually used to
Exergoeconomic
optimize the thermodynamic, economic and environmental performances of the system for each
Exergoenvironment
Optimization
working fluid group. The LINMAP and TOPSIS decision makers are applied to select the optimum per-
Decision making formances of the system and electrolyzer. The optimization results show that the hydrogen cost and
environmental impact per unit exergy are improved within 49.18% and 34.58%, respectively through the
LINMAP method for R236fa-R1234yf. In addition, the maximum improvement in the total cost rate of the
system is calculated within 39.5% for R245fa-R134a through the TOPSIS procedure and the highest
increment in the environmental impact rate belongs to R236fa-R1234yf by about 34.69% using the
LINMAP decision maker.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction infrastructure requirements [2].

Growing energy demand and depleting fossil fuels have led to
the scholarly researches on developing more efficient energy sys-
tems called multi-generation systems (MGSs) and finding alterna-
tives to fossil fuels. Recently, many energy policies promote
investigations to enhance the utilization of the renewable energies
to mitigate the environmental impacts and reduce fossil fuels
consumption. Biomass such as wood and paper, as a renewable
energy source, is biological material from living, or recently living,
organisms which can either be used directly, or converted into
other energy products such as biofuels [1]. The main feature of
biomass includes its lack of CO2 emission contribution. Moreover,
the conversion of biomass to useful energy forms encompasses a
wide range of conversion options, end-use applications and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ98 21 88044040; fax: þ98 21 88617537.
E-mail addresses: fahmadi@alzahra.ac.ir, aboyaghchi@gmail.com
(F.A. Boyaghchi).
On the other hand, it is expected that hydrogen (H2) will be the
main energy carrier in the future as an eco-friendly and a more
efficient source. Several methods, such as steam methane reform-
ing, biomass conversion process, splitting water via photocatalyst,
thermochemical cycles and electrolyzer are used to produce H2 [3].
Among various H2 production techniques, H2 production via the
proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer as a more efficient
system for large scale H2 production, has numerous advantages,
such as low environmental impact and easy maintenance [4]
although high capital cost, lack of infrastructure and problems of
hydrogen storage [5] (hydrogen infrastructure [6]) are considered
as the disadvantages of PEMs.
In the literature, several efforts have been devoted to develop
and model the solar powered MGS integrated with the PEM elec-
trolyzer unit to produce H2. Ozturk and Dincer [7] assessed a new
MGS based on solar power tower and coal gasification process
involving six commodities, namely the power, heating, cooling, H2,
oxygen (O2) and hot water using the energy and exergy concepts.
Some parametric studies were performed in order to examine the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.118
0360-5442/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51 39

Nomenclature s specific entropy, kJ/kg K

T temperature, K
A area, m2 Vact activation overpotential, V
AR air fuel ratio V0 reversible potential, V
B_ environmental impact rate associated with exergy, Vact,a anode activation overpotential, V
Pts/s Vact,c cathode activation overpotential, V
PF Vohm ohmic overpotential, V
B_ component-related pollutant formation, Pts/s
W _ power, W
b specific environmental impact per unit of exergy, Pts/
J X number of moles
c cost per unit of exergy, $/J y mole fraction
C_ cost rate associated with an exergy stream, $/s Y_ component-related environmental impact rate, Pts/s
cp specific heat, J/kg K Z capital investment cost, $
Eact activated energy, kJ/mol Z_ cost rate associated with investment expenditures,
E_ total energy rate, W $/s
ER equivalence ratio
ex specific exergy, kJ/kg Greek letters
_ h efficiency
Ex exergy rate, kW
l water content in ionomer, kmol H2O/kmol SO
3
exo;ch
i
standard specific molar chemical exergy, kJ/kmol sPEM proton conductivity in PEM, 1/U m
F Faraday constant, C/mol s Stefan Boltzmann constant, J/s.m2.K4
f frequency, 1/s f maintenance factor
G Gibbs free energy, kJ
H total enthalpy, kW Subscripts
h specific enthalpy, kJ/kg 0 reference environment state
o
hf specific molar enthalpy of formation, kJ/kmol a anode
ir interest rate, % c cathode
J ref pre-exponential factor, A/m2 Con condenser
Jo exchange current density, A/m2 D destruction
J current density, A/m2 Eva evaporator
k thermal conductivity, W/m.K F fuel
K equilibrium constant HX heat exchanger
L membrane thickness, m i index for state point
LHV lower heating value, kJ/kg P product
m air fuel ratio p pump
M molar mass, kg/kmol Progas producer gas
m_ mass flow rate, kg/s th thermal
n lifetime, year tot total
Tur turbine
N_ molar mass flow rate, mol/s
P pressure, kPa
Superscripts
PEM proton exchange membrane
ch chemical
RPEM proton exchange membrane resistance, U
ph physical
R gas constant, kJ/kg K
R universal gas constant, kJ/kmol K

effects of varying operating conditions on the system performance.
Ahmadi et al. [8] examined and optimized the total cost rate and
the exergy efficiency of a photovoltaic/thermal based MGS pro-
ducing H2, power, cooling and fresh water. Then, they developed
and modeled energetically and exergetically an MGS equipped with
the hot and cold thermal storage tanks to produce electricity,
heating, cooling, H2, and dry sawdust biomass continuously [9].
Ozlu and Dincer [10] proposed a solar MGS for residential appli-
cations to produce useful outputs, namely electricity, heat, fresh
water and H2. The proposed system was thermodynamically
modeled to find the optimum efficiencies, heat and work outputs.
The greenhouse gas emissions caused by conventional energy
systems considering the same outputs were calculated and
compared with the MGS. A techno-economic study was performed
for an MGS based on parabolic trough collectors and geothermal
energy to provide power, cooling, heating, H2 and hot water for
buildings by Khalid et al. [11]. A parametric assessment was
conducted to evaluate the energy and exergy efficiencies. The
optimized electricity power and the levelized cost of electricity
were calculated using the hybrid optimization of multiple energy
resources. Abid et al. [12] compared the thermodynamic perfor-
mance of an MGS integrated with a parabolic trough and dish solar
collectors using Al2O3 and Fe2O3 nanofluids. They found a positive
effect of using nanofluids on the rate of H2 production.
There are some investigations dealing with using the
geothermal energy as a prime mover of MGSs. Ratlamwala et al. [13]
studied the effects of the geothermal parameters on the efficiencies
of an MGS with five outputs including H2 production. It was found
that geothermal source temperature, pressure and mass flow rate
had the positive influences on the power and H2 production. Yuksel
and Ozturk [14] designed and modeled an MGS with four energy
productions, namely electricity, H2, heat and cooling effects. A
parametric analysis showed that the geothermal water tempera-
ture affected the amount and the cost of H2 positively.
40 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51
Akrami et al. [15] used thermodynamic and thermoeconomic
analyses to model a new MGS producing the electricity, heating,
cooling and H2. They calculated thermodynamic efficiencies of the
proposed MGS and the highest and the lowest total unit cost of the
products.
A number of studies have also been conducted on the utilization
of the biomass gasifier and the gas turbine to burn the produced
biofuel in MGSs equipped with PEM electrolyzer.
Ahmadi et al. [16] modeled a five outputs MGS, thermody-
namically. A sensitivity study was conducted to assess the impacts
of major design parameters on the system total exergy destruction
rate, CO2 emission and exergy efficiency. The total cost rate of the
system and the system exergy efficiency were selected as two
objective functions in a fast and elitist non-dominated sorting ge-
netic algorithm (NSGA-II). Ahmadi et al. [17] determined the irre-
versibilities in each component of a new MGS integrated with a
micro gas turbine with four outputs and assessed the potential
reduction in CO2 emissions.
Rabbani et al. [18] thermodynamically modeled a new MGS
based on the gas turbine cycle including H2, electricity, hot water,
and hot air for space heating. A parametric study was performed to
assess the thermodynamic efficiency of the overall system by
varying the substantial input parameters.
An investigation was also conducted on the recovery of the
waste heat as a prime mover for a new MGS proposed by Ahmadi
et al. [19]. The desired system was undertaken to produce the po-
wer, heating, cooling and H2. The exergy and economic analyses
were applied to evaluate thermodynamic and economic perfor-
mances of the system. The total cost rate and the exergy efficiency
of the system were considered as two objectives in the optimization
procedure.
To the best of our knowledge, no MGS is proposed to produce
both biofuel and H2 as the energy carriers. In the current research, a
downdraft biomass gasifier is utilized to produce syngas from the
paper. The heat of the producer gas is applied as a prime mover to
drive a new dual organic Rankine cycle (ORC) based on PEM elec-
trolyzer considering three groups of working fluids, namely
R245fa-R134a, R236fa-R1234yf, R600-R290 to produce the power,
cooling and heating effects, H2 and O2, respectively. The main ob-
jectives of this research are listed as follows:
Fig. 1. Proposed system layout.
 To conduct the exergy, exergoeconomic and exergoenvironment
analyses of the system for each working fluid group.
 To optimize thermodynamic, economic and environmental
performances of the system applying NSGA-II evolutionary
algorithm.
 To find the optimum performances of the entire system by
applying two decision makers, namely LINMAP and TOPSIS.
 To analyze and compare the PEM electrolyzer performance and
gasifier producer gas at the optimum points for each working
fluid group in detail.
2. System description
Fig. 1 illustrates the schematic flow sheet of the proposed MGS.
The cycle concerned mainly consists of a PEM electrolyzer unit, a
dual ORC and a biomass gasification process to provide H2, cooling,
heating, power and biofuel. The paper as biomass (state 1) and the
heated environmental air as the gasification agent (states 6 and 7)
are brought to the gasifier to produce the biofuel (state 2). The hot
producer gas rejects heat to the organic working fluids flowing
inside the dual ORC loop cycles via heat exchanges 2 and 3 (states 4
and 5) and then enters the separator unit to provide the syngas and
other products.
Three groups of organic working fluids namely, R245fa-R134a,
R236fa-R1234yf and R600-R290 are selected as convenient work-
ing fluids [20] respectively for the high temperature (HT) and the
low temperature (LT) ORC cycles. Inside the HT ORC cycle, the hot
and high pressure stream exiting heat exchanger 2 (state 9) enters
turbine 1 to produce power. The primary fluid leaving turbine 1
(state 10) is expanded through the ejector nozzle and creates suc-
tion for the low pressure stream exiting the evaporator (state 15).
The two streams mix and introduce shock in the mixing zone,
followed by pressure recovery in the diffuser zone (state 11). The
mixed streams are then brought to condenser 1 acting as evapo-
rator for the LT ORC cycle. The saturated fluid (state 12) is divided
into two streams (states 13 and 16). One stream passes through the
throttling valve, and then flows into the evaporator to provide the
cooling effect (states 14 and 15). The remaining stream is pumped
back to heat exchanger 2 and completes the cycle. Inside the LT ORC
cycle, the heated working fluid leaving condenser 1 is superheated
via heat exchanger 3 (state 19) flows into turbine 2. After producing
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51 41

power, the low pressure stream is led to condenser 2 to loss the The V0 appeared in Eq. (2), shows the reversible potential which
heat to water, i.e. states 24 and 25. The warm water is split into two can be gained by the Nernst equation as follows:
streams to provide the heating demand and the required warm
water for the electrochemical reaction occurring inside the PEM V0 ¼ 1:229  8:5  104 ðTPEM  298Þ (3)
electrolyzer. The needed power of the PEM electrolyzer is provided
from turbine 2. Finally, the two-phase working fluid (state 21) en- In Eq. (2), Vact,a is the anode activation overpotential, Vact,c is the
ters pump 2 to complete the cycle. cathode activation overpotential, and Vohm is the electrolyte ohmic
overpotential can be expressed as:
3. Methods and materials
Vohm ¼ JRPEM (4)
To simplify the simulation, the following assumptions are made: Here, the overall ohmic resistance can be calculated in term of
the local ionic conductivitysðxÞ, of PEM electrolyzer by Eqs. (5) and
 All components of the system operate under the steady state (6) [25e27]:
condition.
 Kinetic and potential energies and exergies are negligible. Zd
 The pressure drops within the heat exchangers and pipelines are dx
RPEM ¼ (5)
assumed negligible. sPEM ½lðxÞ
0
 The heat losses from the components into the environment are
negligible.   
 Air and gasification products are considered as ideal gas 1 1
sPEM ½lðxÞ ¼ ð0:5139lðxÞ  0:326Þ  exp 1268  
mixtures. 303 T
(6)
Table 1 depicts the assumptions and components' isentropic
efficiencies considered for the turbines and pumps. The lðxÞappeared in Eq. (6) is the water content in the mem-
brane at a location x which can be obtained in terms of the water
3.1. Energy and exergy analyses content at the membrane-electrode edges by Eq. (7) [28]:

la  lc
By considering the above assumptions, mass and energy bal- lðxÞ ¼ x þ lc (7)
ances are applied for each component of the desired system. The L
details of energy analyses of the PEM electrolyzer, and gasification Here, L indicates the membrane thickness, la is the water con-
process are described in the following subsections. tents at the anode-membrane and lc indicates the cathode-
membrane interfaces.
3.1.1. PEM electrolyzer The activation overpotential which is the measure of the activity
The electricity and heat energies are required during the elec- of the electrodes can be formulated as [25]:
trochemical reaction process inside a PEM electrolyzer to split
!
water into H2 and O2. The total energy needed for PEM electrolyzer RT J
can be formulated as [16,17]: Vact ¼ sinh1 i ¼ a; c (8)
F 2J0;i
DH ¼ DG þ T DS (1)
where, J0 is the exchange current density characterizing the capa-
where DGstands for Gibbs free energy and T DSis the thermal bilities of the electrode in the electrochemical reaction.
energy.  
Assuming J < 10,000 A/m2 [25], the concentration over- Eact;i
J0;i ¼ Jiref exp  i ¼ a; c (9)
potentials can be neglected. Then, the PEM electrolyzer voltage can RT
be formulated as:
Here, Jref is the pre-exponential factor and Eact,i is the activation
V ¼ V0 þ Vact;a þ Vact;c þ Vohm (2) energy of the anode and cathode, respectively. The detailed de-
scriptions can be found in Ref. [25].
The molar mass flow rate of H2 and O2 produced at the cathode
and at the anode, respectively are calculated by Eqs. (10) and (11)
Table 1
Assumed values for the system. [16,17]:

Parameter Value
J
Reference temperature, T0 (K) 288
N_ H2 ¼ (10)
2F
Reference pressure, P0 (kPa) 101.3
Turbine isentropic efficiency, his (%) [21] 0.85
Pump isentropic efficiency, his (%) [22] J
0.85
N_ O2 ¼ (11)
Equivalence ratio, ER [23] 0.17 4F
Paper mass flow rate, m _ Paper (kg/s) 0.8
Turbine 2 inlet temperature, T19 (K) 500 In Eqs. (10) and (11), J is the current density and F refers to
Turbine 2 inlet mass flow rate,m_ 19 (kg/s) 1 Faraday constant.
Pump 1 inlet pressure, P16 (kPa) 700
Ejector inlet pressure, P15 (kPa) 40
Turbine 1 outlet pressure, P10 (kPa) 1100
Turbine 2 outlet pressure, P20 (kPa) R600-R290 800 3.1.2. Gasifier
other groups 600 By considering the equilibrium model [29], the relevant chem-
PEM electrolyzer water inlet temperature, T25 (K) [24] 353 ical reactions taking place during the biomass gasification process
PEM electrolyzer current density, J (A/m2) [25] 6800
can be defined as [23,30]:
42 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51

respectively.
C þ CO2 ⇔2CO (12) According to Eq. (22) and ignoring the kinetic and potential
_ ¼ m:ex)
exergies, the total exergy rate (Ex _ can be divided into two
C þ H2 O⇔CO þ H2 (13) _ Ph ) and total chemical exergy (Ex
parts: total physical exergy (Ex _ ch )
as follows:
C þ 2H2 ⇔CH4 (14)
_ ¼ Ex
Ex _ ch
_ Ph þ Ex (23)
CO þ H2 O⇔CO2 þ H2 (15) The specific physical exergy can be expressed as:
Eq. (15) is the shift reaction obtained by combining Eqs. (12) and
(13). exPh ¼ ðh  h0 Þ  T0 ðs  s0 Þ (24)
The equilibrium constants for Eqs. (14) and (15) are as follows:
where T is the temperature, s is the specific entropy and the
PCH4 subscript 0 denotes the as the reference-environment conditions.
K1 ¼  2 (16) The specific chemical exergy of paper fuel can be calculated as
PH2
follows [33]:

PCO2 PH2
K2 ¼ (17) paper ¼ bLHVpaper
exch (25)
PCO PH2 O
Here, the factor b is calculated via a statistical correlation pre-
In this research, the paper with typical chemical formula of sented in Ref. [33]:
CH1.59O0.766N0.00592 [31] is considered as the biomass feed in an air
 
biomass gasification where the chemical reaction can be formu- 1:044 þ 0:16 H O H
C  0:34493 C 1 þ 0:0531 C
lated as: b¼ (26)
1  0:4124 O
C
CH1:59 O0:766 N0:00592 þ wH2 O þ ER:as ðO2 þ 3:75N2 Þ Here, H, C, O represent the weight fractions of the carbon, H2 and
(18)
0n1 H2 þ n2 CO þ n3 CO2 þ n4 H2 O þ n5 CH4 þ n6 N2 O2, respectively.
The molar specific chemical exergy of an ideal gas mixture can
where, n1 through n6 refer to the molar coefficients of each be estimated as follows [34]:
component in the products and can be calculated based on the
X X
minimization of Gibbs energy [29]. w denotes the amount of water exch ¼ yi exo;ch
i
þ RT0 yi ln yi (27)
per kmol of paper, ER is the equivalence ratio [23] and as represents i i
the theoretical molar coefficient of the air. The amount of the molar
In Eq. (27), yi is the mole fraction of the ith component and
coefficients depends on the value of air supply to the gasifier. The
o;ch
moisture content per mole of paper (MC) can be expressed as [29]: ex is the standard chemical exergy.

MC ¼ ðmass of water=mass of wet biomassÞ  100% 3.2. Exergoeconomic and exergoenvironmental impact analyses
18w
¼  100% (19) The cost per unit exergy of product streams within the com-
Mpaper þ 18w
ponents of a system can be calculated using the exergeconomic
analysis. In current research, the specific exergy cost procedure is
Mpaper MC
w¼ (20) utilized owing to its straightforward scheme.
18ð1  MCÞ
The cost balance equation within the kth component consid-
The value of w is fixed if MC is constant and Mpaper denotes the ering the thermal energy and power can be expressed as [32]:
molar mass of paper. X X
The energy balance for the gasifier, neglecting the heat losses C_ out;k þ C_ w;k ¼ C_ in;k þ C_ q;k þ Z_ k (28)
from the gasifier, is as follows:
_
Here, Cdenotes the cost rate. The indexes w and q refer to the
o o X  o X6  o power and thermal energy associated with the cost rates. The cost
hf ;paper þ whf ;paper þ ER:as hf ;a þ Dha ¼ ni hf ;i þ Dhi rate in Eq. (28) can be written as:
i¼1
(21) C_ ¼ c Ex
_ (29)
o
In Eq. (21), hf is the enthalpy of formation. Dhrefers to the sen- where, c is the average cost per unit exergy of each stream. The
sible heat of the species relative to the reference state. The sub- _
Zappeared in Eq. (28), is the cost rate of the capital investment,
scripts a and i represent the air and products components, operation and maintenance of each component expressed as:
respectively. The paper enthalpy of the formation can be calculated  
f:CRF
Z_ k ¼
on a molar basis for the gas mixture according to [29]. From Eq.
Zk (30)
(21), the amount and temperature of the producer gas can be n
gained.
Through the exergy analysis, the exergy destruction of the kth ir ð1 þ ir Þn
component (Ex _ ) can be calculated as [32]: CRF ¼
 (31)
D;k ð1 þ ir Þn  1
_ _ _ Here, f is the maintenance factor, CRF is the capital recovery
Ex D;k ¼ ExF;k  ExP;k (22)
factor (CRF), n is the life time and ir is the interest rate. Table 2
_
Here, Ex _
F;k and ExP;k stand for the fuel and product exergies, indicate the cost data and capital investment cost function for
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51 43

Table 2
Cost data and cost functions for economic modeling for the cycle [8,35e37].

Cost data Value

Life time, n (year) 15

Annual plant operation hours, h (hour) 7200
Interest rate, ir (%) 15
Maintenance factor, f() 1.06
System component Cost function ($)
Gasifier Zgasifier ¼ 1600ðm_ drybiomass Þ0:67
Heat Exchanger 1 ZHX1 ¼ C1 ðAHX1 Þ0:8 þ C2 m_ 6 þ C3 m1:2
2 C1 ¼ 3650; C2 ¼ 11820; C3 ¼ 658
Heat Exchangers 2&3  0:78
AHX
ZHX ¼ 130 0:093

Pumps Zp ¼ 3500ðW_ p Þ0:41

Condensers ZCon ¼ 150ðACon Þ0:8
Turbines ZTur ¼ 4750ðW_ Tur Þ0:75 þ 60ðW
_ Tur Þ0:95
PEM Electrolyzer ZPEM ¼ 1000W _ PEM
Evaporator ZEva ¼ 276ðAEva Þ0:88

each component and Table 3 shows the cost rate balance and
auxiliary equations for each component of the system.
The exergoenvironmental analysis is conducted by assigning the
environmental impact gained from life cycle assessment (LCA) to
the exergy streams of the kth component. The environmental
impact rate balance for each component can be written as [38]:
m_ m;out and m_ m;in are the mass flow rate of corresponding emitted
pollutants. The emissions formed via the gasifier and PEM elec-
trolyzer are taking into account: CO, CO2, CH4, NOx [38,39], N2, H2
and O2. Table 5 indicates the amount of environmental impact per
amount of emissions.

X  PF
X 3.3. Criteria
B_ in;k þ Y_ k þ B_ k ¼ B_ out;k (32)
To evaluate the performances of the entire system, the energy
Here, B_ ¼ b Exis
_ the environmental impact rate associated with and exergy efficiencies and the total product cost and environ-
the exergy stream and b is defined as environmental impact per mental impact rates are considered via Eqs. (34)e(37),
unit of exergy. For the components with chemical reactions, the consequently.
exergy rate consists of both physical and chemical components.
Y_ is the component-related environmental impact rate associated _ net þ Q_ _ _ _ _
W cooling þ Q heating þ EH2 þ E O2 þ E Progas
k
hth ¼ (34)
with the life cycle phases which can be calculated by the mass _
ðm LHVÞpaper
amount of materials and the life cycle inventory associated with the
In Eq. (34), W _ net is the net power output, Q_ _
production which can be obtained from ECO-indicator 99. Table 4 cooling and Q heating are
lists the environmental impact rate balance for each component. respectively the cooling and heating effects produced.
E_ H2 ð¼ m_ H2 hH2 Þ, E_ O2 and E_ Progas are H2, O2 and producer gas energies,
PF
B_ indicates the component-related pollutant formation calculated
k
for components where the chemical reaction occurs. The relation of respectively. LHV is the lower heating value of the paper.
PF
B_ is given by: _
_ net þ Ex _ _ _ _
cooling þ Exheating þ Ex28 þ Ex29 þ ExProgas
k
W
hex ¼ _
(35)
PF X   Expaper
B_ k ¼ bPF _ _
m mm;out  mm;in (33)
m
and the total product cost and environmental impact rates of the
Here, bPF
m is the environmental impact per amount of emissions. system can be formulated as:

Table 3
Cost rate and auxiliary equations for system components.

Component Cost rate balance Auxiliary relation

Gasifier _ þ c7 Ex
_ 7 þ Z_ _ e
c1 Ex1 gasifier ¼ c2 Ex2
Heat Exchanger 1 _ þ c Ex
c2 Ex _ þ Z_ ¼ c _ þ c7 Ex
Ex _ 7 c2 ¼ c3
2 6 6 HX1 3 3
Heat Exchanger 2 _ þ c Ex_ þ Z_ _ _ c3 ¼ c4
c3 Ex3 8 8 HX2 ¼ c4 Ex4 þ c9 Ex9
Heat Exchanger 3 _
c Ex þ c Ex_ þ Z_ ¼ c5 Ex_ 5 þ c Ex_ c4 ¼ c5
4 23 15 15 HX3 19 19
Turbine 1 _ þ Z_ _ _ c9 ¼ c10
c9 Ex 9 Tur1 ¼ cTur1 W Tur1 þ c10 Ex10
Pump 1 _
c16 Ex þ c W_ þ _ ¼ c Ex
Z _ e
16 P1 P1 p1 8 8
Expansion valve c Ex_ þ Z_ Exp ¼ c Ex_ e
13 13 14 14
Evaporator _ _ _ _ _ c11 ¼ c12
c14 Ex 14 þ c17 Ex17 þ Z Eva ¼ c15 Ex15 þ c18 Ex18
Ejector _ 10 þ c15 Ex
c10 Ex _ 15 þ Z_ ¼ c11 Ex _ 11 e
Ejc
Turbine 2 c Ex_ þ Z_ ¼c W _ þ c Ex _ c19 ¼ c20
19 19 Tur2 Tur2 Tur2 20 20
Pump 2 _ _ _ _ e
c21 Ex 21 þ cP2 W P2 þ Z p2 ¼ c22 Ex22
Condenser 2 _ _ _ _ _ c11 ¼ c12
c11 Ex 11 þ c19 Ex19 þ Z CND2 ¼ c20 Ex20 þ c12 Ex12
PEM Electrolyzer _
c27 Ex þ c W _ þ _
Z ¼ c Ex_ þ c _ c28 ¼ c29
27 Elec Elec Elec 28 28 29 Ex29
Condenser 1 c Ex_ þ c Ex _ þ Z_ ¼ c Ex _ þ c Ex_ c4 ¼ c5
11 11 22 22 Con1 12 12 23 23
44 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51

Table 4
Environmental impact balance and auxiliary equations for components.

Components Environmental impact rate balance equation Auxiliary relations

Gasifier _ þ b7 Ex
_ 7 þ ðY_ _ PF
_ e
b1 Ex1 gasifier þ B Þ ¼ b2 Ex2
Heat Exchanger 1 bch _ ch þ bph _ ph þ _ 6 þ Y_ HX1 ¼ bch Ex
_ ch þ bph Ex
_ ph þ b7 Ex
_ 7 bph ph ch ch
2 Ex2 2 Ex2 b6 Ex 3 3 3 3 2 ¼ b3 ; b2 ¼ b3
Heat Exchanger 2 ch _ ch þ ph _ ph
þ _ _ ch _ ch ph _ ph
b8 Ex8 þ Y HX4 ¼ b4 Ex4 þ b4 Ex4 þ b9 Ex _ bph ph ch ch
b3 Ex 3 b3 Ex3 9 3 ¼ b4 ; b3 ¼ b4
Heat Exchanger 3 ch _ ch þ
ph _ ph
þ _ _ ch _ ch ph _ ph
b23 Ex23 þ Y HX3 ¼ b5 Ex5 þ b5 Ex5 þ b19 Ex _ ph
b4 ¼ b5 ; bch
ph ch
b4 Ex 4 b4 Ex 4 19 4 ¼ b5
Turbine 1 _ þ Y_ _ _ b9 ¼ b10
b9 Ex 9 Tur1 ¼ bTur1 W Tur1 þ b10 Ex10
Pump 1 _ _ _ _ e
b16 Ex 16 þ bP1 W P1 þ Y p1 ¼ b8 Ex8
Condenser 1 _ _ _ _ _ b11 ¼ b12
b11 Ex 11 þ b22 Ex22 þ Y Con1 ¼ b16 Ex16 þ b23 Ex23
Expansion valve _ þ Y_ EXP ¼ b7 Ex
b Ex _ 7 e
6 6
Evaporator _ _ _ _ _ b14 ¼ b15
b14 Ex14 þ b17 Ex17 þ Y Eva ¼ b15 Ex15 þ b18 Ex18
Ejector _ _ _ _ e
b10 Ex10 þ b15 Ex15 þ Y Ejc ¼ b11 Ex11
Pump 2 _ _ _ _ e
b21 Ex21 þ bP2 W P2 þ Y p2 ¼ b22 Ex22
Condenser 2 _ þ _ þ _ ¼ _ _ b20 ¼ b21
b20 Ex20 b 24 Ex 24 Y Con2 b 21 Ex21 þ b25 Ex25
Turbine 2 b Ex_ þ Y_ ¼b W_ þ b Ex _ b19 ¼ b20
19 19 Tur2 Tur2 tur2 20 20
PEM Electrolyzer _ _ _ PF
B_ PEM Þ ¼ bch _ ch _ ph ch _ ch ph _ ph bph ph
b27 Ex27 þ bElec W Elec þ ðY Elec þ 28 Ex28 þ bph
28 Ex28 þ b29 Ex29 þ b29 Ex29 28 ¼ b29 ; b28 ¼ b29
ch ch

from the ideal point is identified as the final optimum answer

Table 5
The environmental impact per amount of emis-
[42,43]:
sions bPF [38,39], (mPts/kg). 
Constitute Value
ifinal ¼ i2min Edþ
i (39)

CO 8.364 In TOPSIS decision making procedure, the non-ideal answer is

CO2 5.454
defined besides the ideal one. The Euclidian distance of each
CH4 114.622
NOx 2749.36 answer from the non-ideal solution is identified as [9,44e46]:
N2 12 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H2 830 Xn  2
O2 12 Ed
i ¼ j¼1
Fij  F nonideal
j (40)

Ed
i
Yi ¼ (41)
C_ P;tot ¼ C_ P;PEM þ C_ P;Tur1&2 þ C_ P;cooling þ C_ P;heating þ C_ P;Progas Ed
i
þ Edþ
i

(36) An answer with maximum Yi is identified as an optimual solu-

tion in the TOPSIS method:
B_ P;tot ¼ B_ P;PEM þ B_ P;Tur1&2 þ B_ P;cooling þ B_ P;heating þ B_ P;Progas ifinal ¼ i2maxðYi Þ (42)
(37)
A new assessment parameter called the deviation index indi-
cating the reasonable status of various solutions from the ideal
solution can be expressed by Refs. [9,47]:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2ffi
3.4. Optimization procedure and decision making Pn  ideal
j¼1 F i  F j
d ¼ rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (43)
The multi-objective optimization does not lead to a feasible Pn  ideal P n

nonideal
2
solution at which all desired objectives are improved, simulta- j¼1 Fi  F j þ j¼1 Fi  F j
neously. In this case, a set of non-dominated answers called the
Pareto frontier are obtained for the concerned objectives over the
upper and lower bounds of decision variables. In this research, the
Pareto frontier are achieved applying the evolutionary algorithm 4. Validation
based on NSGA-II proposed by Deb [40,41].
To find the final optimal answer among the solutions exit on the To ensure the accuracy of the developed computer simulation
Pareto frontier, LINMAP and TOPSIS decision makers are used in code in Engineering Equation Solver (EES), the gasification and PEM
parallel. electrolyzer processes are simulated individually and the results
In LINMAP decision making procedure, the Euclidian distance are compared with those reported in the literature.
(Ed) of each answer on the Pareto frontier from the ideal one is
calculated as: 4.1. Gasification process model
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Xn  2 In this research, the gasification process simulation is imple-
þ ideal
Edi ¼ j¼1
F ij  F j (38) mented using Zainal et al. [29] equilibrium model. For this purpose,
wood with moisture content of 20% and gasification temperature of
Here, Fij is the jth objective of the ith point existing on the Pareto
1023.15 K are considered. Table 6 lists the molar fraction percentage
frontier and Fjideal is the ideal answer of the jth objective obtained obtained from the current model and those reported by several
from the single-objective optimization. The minimum distance researchers.
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51
Table 6
The comparison of the producer gas molar fraction between the present model and those reported in previous researches for wood (MC ¼ 20% and T2 ¼ 1023.15 K).
Constituent (%) Present model
H2 21.06
CO 19.48
CH4 0.63
CO2 12.70
N2 46.13
O2 0 0
RSMD 0.398
NRSMD 0.0054
Table 6. The comparison of the producer gas molar fraction
between the present model and those reported in previous re-
searches for wood (MC ¼ 20% and T2 ¼ 1023.15 K)
Referring to the results, the amount of constituents obtained in
this model are close to those reported by Zainal et al. [29] so that
the root square mean deviation (RSMD) and normalized RSMD
(NRSMD) may be calculated by about 0.398 and 0.0054, respec-
tively while these values are higher than what were calculated in
the previous research. According to the description presented in
Ref. [31], the sum of the H2 and CO molar fraction percentage ob-
tained in this model is within 40.54% which shows good agreement
with experimental results [48] (38.27%) and supports the accuracy
of the present simulation. As clearly observed, 0.54% improvement
is achieved in relation to that reported by Gholamian et al. [31].
4.2. PEM electrolyzer model
Simulation of the PEM electrolyzer is performed using Eqs.
(1)e(11) and the effects of PEM electrolyzer current density on cell
potential are compared with experimental data reported by Ioroi
et al. [24] in Fig. 2. The simulation is conducted by considering the
electrolytes thickness of 50 mm, Platinum electrode catalyst, Nafion
electrolyte, temperature of 353 K and atmosphere pressure. As
observed from Fig. 2, the simulation results agree well with the
experimental data ensuring the validity of the present modeling.
5. Results and discussion
The simulation of the system concerned is carried out by
Fig. 2. The effects of PEM electrolyzer current density on cell potential.
45
Gholamian et al. [31] Zainal et al. [29] Experiment [48]
21.06 21.06 15.23
20.48 19.61 23.04
1.03 0.64 1.58
12.40 12.01 16.42
44.48 46.68 42.31
0 1.42
1.086 e e
0.0251 e e
developing the governing equations in EES software and consid-
ering the assumptions made in Section 3. Table 7 outlines the
simulation of the system for various working fluid groups consid-
ering paper as biomass and Table 8 indicates the composition of the
producer gas and mass flow rate for streams 2 through 5 obtained
from the simulation.
According to the results, the different thermophysical property
of R600 in comparison with other working fluids leads to the higher
enthalpy at the entrance of the turbines under the same conditions.
Therefore, the produced power for this fluid is higher than what are
obtained by other studied fluids. Moreover, R290 causes a more
heating effect via condenser 2 within 654.7 kW owing to the higher
enthalpy as compared with other fluids. These variations leads to
the higher energy and exergy efficiencies within 79.35% and 67.64%,
respectively for R600-R290 than what are gained from R245fa-
R134a and R236fa-R1234yf. The product costs of the power, heat-
ing and cooling effects affect the total product cost of system
significantly so that these values may be 185.88 $/h for R236fa-
R1234yf followed by 108.02 $/h and 85.87 $/h for R245fa-R134a
and R600-R290, respectively. Therefore the lowest total product
cost is obtained for R600-R290 within 152.7 $/h. The minimum
total product environmental impact rate belongs to R600-R290 by
about 485.1 Pts/h owing to the high contributions of the power,
heating and cooling effects produced. Since the mass flow rates of
H2 and O2 do not affected by the fluids type, their values remain
constant within 5.005 kg/day and 40.037 kg/day, respectively.
The H2 cost and environmental impact per unit of exergy are
affected by the PEM electrolyzer current density and the water inlet
temperature as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Results indicate that R236fa-
R1234yf absorbs lower heat via heat exchangers 2 and 3 and causes
lower temperatures at points 8 and 23. Therefore, this behavior
leads to a decrement in the exergy rate at point 25 and conse-
quently higher cost and environmental impact per unit exergy of H2
for this organic working fluid in comparison with other considered
fluids.
As can be seen in Fig. 3, the increase of J has a positive effect on
the H2 cost per unit of the exergy so that the highest decrement
may be achieved within 19.6% for R600-R290 followed by R236fa-
R1234yf and R236fa-R1234yf with values of 10% and 8.3%, respec-
tively. Further results show that the temperature of entrance water
has a little positive impact on H2 cost per unit exergy so that the
maximum reduction with value of 3.15% may be related to R245fa-
R134a and R236fa-R1234yf and R600-R290 are in the next ranking.
According to Fig. 4, the increase of J has a drastic negative effect
on the environmental impact per unit exergy of H2. In this case,
environmental impact per unit exergy gets 2.6 times for R236fa-
R1234yf while it gets 2.3 times for R600-R290. On the contrary,
water temperature affects the environmental impact per unit
exergy of H2 positively. It is observed that R600-R290 with the
lowest value of environmental impact has the minimum reduction
within 1.8% as water temperature increases while R245fa-R134a
with 2.1% reduction is dominant.
46 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51

Table 7
Performances of the system for various working fluid groups.

Parameters Values

R245fa-R134a R236fa-R1234yf R600-R290

Energy efficiency, hen (%) 76.77 76.43 79.35

Exergy efficiency, hex (%) 61.23 60.91 67.64
Total product cost rate, C_ P;tot ($/h) 174.6 252.8 152.7
Total product environmental impact rate, B_ P;tot (Pts/h) 540.7 742.1 485.1
Net power produced, W _ Net (kW) 79.84 69.74 111.3
Domestic heat water, Q_ DHW (kW) 317.9 304.2 654.7
Cooling load, Q_ (kW)
cooling
85.02 66.24 47.3
H2 produced, m_ H2 (kg/day) 5.005 5.005 5.005
O2 produced, m_ O2 (kg/day) 40.037 40.037 40.037

Table 8
Composition of the producer gas and mass flow rate during the gasification process
for streams 2 through 5 at the design point.

Constituent y (mol. %) _
m(kg/s)

H2 20.38 0.03655
CO 25.03 0.5046
CO2 13.83 0.4381
H2O 14.02 0.009366
CH4 6.49 0.07477
N2 15.22 0.2978

Fig. 4. The effects of PEM electrolyzer current density and water inlet temperature on
the environmental impact per unit exergy of H2.

Fig. 3. The effects of PEM electrolyzer current density and water inlet temperature on
the cost per unit exergy of H2.

Fig. 5 indicates that effects of paper mass flow rate and ER on the
produced mass flow rate, cost and environmental impact per unit
exergy of the producer gas. As clearly observed, the paper mass
flow rate and ER increase the producer gas mass flow rate produced
in gasification process within 114% and 14%, respectively while they
do not affect the producer gas cost per unit exergy significantly. ER
increment causes a decrement in the producer gas environmental
impact per unit exergy within 2.11%. Fig. 5. The effects of paper mass flow rate and ER on the producer gas parameters.
The effect of the interest rate variations on the total product cost
rate of the system is illustrated in Fig. 6. The growth of the interest
rate affects the operating and maintenance cost of the system
negatively so that the capital and maintenance of the system may 5.1. Optimization results
increase drastically. This increment is within 2.44% for R245fa-
R134a followed by 2.1% and 2% for R600-R290 and R236fa- Four objectives of the system namely, hen , hex , C_ P;tot and B_ P;tot , i.e.
R1234ayf, respectively. Eqs. (34)e(37), are optimized by conducting NSGA-II. Ten
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51 47

independent design parameters with corresponding limits are

considered as decision variables as shown in Table 9 while other
parameters are kept constant.
Fig. 7 indicate the 3D Pareto frontier of four objectives for
R245fa-R134a with corresponding parameters in Table 10. The
optimum points achieved through LINMAP and TOPSIS decision
makers are in coordination (77.16%, 61.62%, 105.7 $/h, 366.3 mPts/h)
and (77.18%, 61.65%, 105.5 $/h, 365.5 mPts/h), respectively.
Although, LINMAP procedure shows a more reliable solution with
the deviation index of 0.00194 in relation to TOPSIS, the optimum
point obtained from the TOPSIS decision maker leads to higher
improvements for all objectives so that the energy and exergy ef-
ficiencies may increase within 0.53% and 0.68%, respectively and
total product cost and environmental impact rates drop by about
39.5% and 32.4%, respectively in comparison with the base point.
Fig. 8 illustrates the Pareto frontier solutions for R236fa-R1234yf
and the corresponding optimum points are listed in Table 11. The
LINMAP method with the deviation index of 0.01402 indicates a
more reliable solution than what is obtained from TOPSIS method.
At this point, the maximum decrement for the environmental
Fig. 6. The effects of the interest rate on the economic performance of the system.

Table 9
Limits of decision variables.

Limits m_ paper (kg/s) ER T19 (K) m_ 19 (kg/s) P16 (kPa) P15 (kPa) P10 (kPa) P20 (kPa) T25 (K) J (A/m2)

Lower 0.7 0.17 450 0.5 500 30 900 500 333 3000
Upper 1.5 0.22 520 1 800 50 1200 800 363 10000

Fig. 7. The Pareto frontier for R245fa-R134a.

48 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51

Table 10
Comparison between optimal solutions and corresponding decision variables for R245fa-R134a.

Decision making method Criteria Decision variables Deviation index (d)

tot tot
hth (%) hex (%) C_ P ($/h) B_ P (mPts/h) m_ paper (kg/s) ER T19 (K) m_ 19 (kg/s) P16 (kPa) P15 (kPa) P10 (kPa) P20 (kPa)

LINMAP 77.16 61.62 105.7 366.3 0.7000 0.1700 450.0 0.9950 502.7 30.10 901.5 500.0 0.00194
TOPSIS 77.18 61.65 105.5 365.5 0.7000 0.1700 450.0 1.0000 500.0 30.00 900.0 500.0 0.00198
Ideal solution 77.21 61.74 105.5 365.5 e e e e e e e e 0
Non ideal solution 77.02 61.51 108.5 374.8 e e e e e e e e ∞
Base point 76.77 61.23 174.6 540.7 0.8000 0.1700 500.0 1.0000 700.0 40.00 1100.0 600.0 e

Fig. 8. The Pareto frontier for R236fa-R1234yf.

impact can be calculated within 34.69% in relation to the base point,
while the maximum increment in energy and exergy efficiencies
are obtained within 1.3% and 3.2%, respectively through TOPSIS
method.
Fig. 9 shows the Pareto frontier solution for R600-R290 and
Table 12 indicates the specified parameters. For this working fluid,
TOPSIS decision maker with deviation index of 0.01147 leads to a
higher reliable answer. At this optimum point the total cost and
environmental impact of the system are improved within 26.3%
and 20.0%, respectively in relation to the base point, while the
maximum improvement for energy and exergy efficiencies can be
achieved by about 2.4% and 4.6%, respectively through the LINMAP
procedure.
Fig. 10 implies the comparison between the single and multi-
objective optimizations results for all working fluids. As can be
seen, the maximum increment in single-objective optimization of
energy and exergy efficiencies belongs to R600-R290 with values of
2.5% and 5.3%, respectively. This working fluids show the highest
energy and exergy efficiencies within 79.35% and 67.64% at the base
point as well. If the cost is in priority of the optimization, R236fa-
R1234yf with 50% reduction will be dominant followed by R600-
R290 with a value of 32.48% although this working fluid group
has the lowest total product cost of 152.7 $/h in comparison with
other working fluids. R600-R290 with the minimum environ-
mental impact of 485.1 Pts/h at the base point shows the lowest
decrement within 25.72% while R236fa-R1234yf as the worst
working fluid from the environmental impact viewpoint has the
highest reduction of 43.02% followed by R245fa-R134a with a value
of 32.38%.
Table 13 indicates the fuel products via the PEM electrolyzer and
gasifier at optimum points for all working fluids. The mass flow rate
of H2 produced by PEM electrolyzer is only affected by the current
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51 49

Table 11
Comparison between optimal solutions and corresponding decision variables for R236fa-R1234yf.

Decision making method Criteria Decision variables Deviation index (d)

tot tot
hth (%) hex (%) C_ P ($/h) B_ P (mPts/h) m_ paper (kg/s) ER T19 (K) m_ 19 (kg/s) P16 (kPa) P15 (kPa) P10 (kPa) P20 (kPa)

LINMAP 77.26 62.42 145.8 484.6 0.7005 0.1709 520.0 0.9348 509.9 30.00 900.3 508.2 0.01402
TOPSIS 77.43 62.86 145.8 486.1 0.7000 0.1702 519.2 1.0000 504.0 30.46 1020.0 514.8 0.01415
Ideal solution 77.50 62.91 124.7 420.9 e e e e e e e e 0
Non ideal solution 76.59 61.04 152.7 506.5 e e e e e e e e ∞
Base point 76.43 60.91 252.8 742.1 0.8000 0.1700 500.0 1.0000 700.0 40.00 1100.0 600.0 e

Fig. 9. The Pareto frontier for R600-R290.

density. Therefore, its value remains constant (5.005 kg/day) for all
conditions while its cost per unit exergy is improved for all working
fluids so that the maximum reduction may be achieved within
49.18% for R236fa-R1234yf through the LINMAP procedure fol-
lowed by R600-R290 and R245fa-R134a with values of 22.2% and
20.5%, respectively.
Moreover, the environmental impact per unit exergy of H2
reaches 2.190 mPts/GJ for R236fa-R1234yf using the LINMAP de-
cision maker. In this case, the highest reduction can be observed
within 34.58% for R236fa-R1234yf while slight reduction occurs for
R600-R290 and R245fa-R134a by about 9.03% and 8.4%,
respectively.
According to the results, the producer gas mass flow rate de-
pends on both biomass amount and ER. The equal values of mass
flow rate for R245fa-R134a (1.34 kg/s) and for R600-R290 (1.342 kg/
s) are due to the similar values of the paper mass flow rate and ER
(see Tables 10 and 12). The decrement in the producer gas mass
flow rate is because of the reduction in the biomass feed and ER in
relative to the base point. As clearly observed, the lowest reduction
belongs to R236fa-R1234yf with a value of 12.19%. The cost per unit
exergy decrease slightly by about 0.002 $/GJ for R236fa-R1234yf
through the LINMAP method. Further results indicate that at the
optimum points the environmental impact per unit exergy in-
creases for all working fluid groups due to the growth of environ-
mental impact associated with exergy destruction in comparison
with the base point. R236fa-R1234yf with minimum increment in
the environmental impact per unit exergy of 7 mPts/GJ obtained
through the LINMAP decision making is dominant.
6. Conclusion
The comprehensive exergy, economic and environmental
50 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51

Table 12
Comparison between optimal solutions and corresponding decision variables for R600-R290.

Decision making method Criteria Decision variables Deviation index (d)

tot tot
hth (%) hex (%) C_ P ($/h) B_ P (mPts/h) m_ paper (kg/s) ER T19 (K) m_ 19 (kg/s) P16 (kPa) P15 (kPa) P10 (kPa) P20 (kPa)

LINMAP 81.31 70.80 113.1 389.1 0.7000 0.1700 512.7 0.9938 506.1 30.14 906.8 750.0 0.01147
TOPSIS 81.16 70.44 112.5 388.0 0.7003 0.1700 507.4 0.9886 500.0 30.02 900.0 750.2 0.01134
Ideal solution 81.46 71.22 103.0 360.1 e e e e e e e e 0
Non ideal solution 79.74 67.56 121.2 412.5 e e e e e e e e ∞
Base point 79.35 67.64 152.7 485.1 0.8000 0.1700 500.0 1.0000 700.0 4000 1100.0 800.0 e

Fig. 10. Comparison between optimal solutions and single-objective optimization.

Table 13
Specified options of gaseous fluid products.

Decision makings PEM electrolyzer (m_ H2 ¼ 5:005 kg=day) Gasifier

cH2 ($/GJ) bH2 (mPts/GJ) m_ Progas (kg/s) cProgas ($/GJ) bProgas (mPts/GJ)

R245fa-R134a
LINMAP 8.880 2.490 1.340 2.290 9154
TOPSIS 8.850 2.480 1.340 2.290 9154
Base point 11.170 2.710 1.533 2.291 9143
R236fa-R1234yf
LINMAP 7.454 2.190 1.346 2.289 9150
TOPSIS 7.607 2.227 1.343 2.290 9153
Base point 14.670 3.348 1.533 2.291 9143
R600-R290
LINMAP 8.004 2.340 1.342 2.291 9154
TOPSIS 8.074 2.353 1.342 2.291 9154
Base point 10.290 2.579 1.533 2.291 9143
 F.A. Boyaghchi et al. / Energy 145 (2018) 38e51
impact analyses of a newly MGS providing the heating, cooling,
power, H2 and O2 are performed. The optimum performances of the
proposed system and the PEM electrolyzer, obtained using NSGA-II,
are compared for various working fluid groups. The main conclu-
sions obtained from this research are summarized as follows:
 Using R600-R290 causes the maximum energy and exergy ef-
ficiencies within 79.35% and 67.64%, respectively and the min-
imum total product cost and environmental impact rates by
about 152.7% and 485.1 Pts/h, respectively.
 The highest improvements in the total product cost and envi-
ronmental impact rates are achieved for R245fa-R134a within
39.5% and 32.4%, respectively through the TOPSIS procedure in
comparison with other working fluids.
 The maximum improvement in the exergy efficiency is calcu-
lated by about 4.6% for R600-R290 through the LINMAP
procedure.
 The maximum reduction of the H2 cost per unit exergy with a
value of 49.18% is related to R236fa-R1234yf obtained from the
LINMAP decision maker.
 R236fa-R1234yf leads to the highest decrement in the envi-
ronmental impact per unit exergy of H2 within 34.58% through
the LINMAP procedure.
References
[1] Cohce M, Dincer I, Rosen M. Energy and exergy analyses of a biomass-based
hydrogen production system. Bioresour Technol 2011;102(18):8466e74.
[2] Arbon I. Worldwide use of biomass in power generation and combined heat
and power schemes. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part A. J Power Energy 2002;216(1):41e57.
[3] Kalinci Y, Dincer I, Hepbasli A. Energy and exergy analyses of a hybrid
hydrogen energy system: a case study for Bozcaada. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(4):2492e503.
[4] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Energy and exergy analyses of hydrogen
production via solar-boosted ocean thermal energy conversion and PEM
electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2013;38(4):1795e805.
[5] Hussain M, et al. Thermodynamic analysis of a PEM fuel cell power system. Int
J Therm Sci 2005;44(9):903e11.
[6] Mert S, Dincer I, Ozcelik Z. Exergoeconomic analysis of a vehicular PEM fuel
cell system. J Power Sources 2007;165(1):244e52.
[7] Ozturk M, Dincer I. Thermodynamic assessment of an integrated solar power
tower and coal gasification system for multi-generation purposes. Energy
Convers Manag 2013;76:1061e72.
[8] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Multi-objective optimization of a novel solar-
based multigeneration energy system. Sol Energy 2014;108:576e91.
[9] Ahmadi MH, Ahmadi MA, Pourfayaz F. Thermodynamic analysis and evolu-
tionary algorithm based on multi-objective optimization performance of
actual power generating thermal cycles. Appl Therm Eng 2016;99:996e1005.
[10] Ozlu S, Dincer I. Performance assessment of a new solar energy-based mul-
tigeneration system. Energy 2016;112:164e78.
[11] Khalid F, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Techno-economic assessment of a solar-
geothermal multigeneration system for buildings. Int J Hydrogen Energy 17
August 2017;42(33):21454e62.
[12] Abid M, Ratlamwala TA, Atikol U. Solar assisted multi-generation system us-
ing nanofluids: a comparative analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 17 August
2017;42(33):21429e42.
[13] Ratlamwala T, Dincer I, Gadalla M. Performance analysis of a novel integrated
geothermal-based system for multi-generation applications. Appl Therm Eng
2012;40:71e9.
[14] Yuksel YE, Ozturk M. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of a
geothermal energy based integrated system for hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(4):2530e46.
[15] Akrami E, et al. Energetic and exergoeconomic assessment of a multi-
generation energy system based on indirect use of geothermal energy. En-
ergy 2017;124:625e39.
[16] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic modeling and multi-objective
evolutionary-based optimization of a new multigeneration energy system.
Energy Convers Manag 2013;76:282e300.
[17] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Development and assessment of an integrated
biomass-based multi-generation energy system. Energy 2013;56:155e66.
[18] Rabbani H, Dincer I, Rahnamayan S. A novel multigenerational hydrogen
51
production system: performance evaluation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(17):12888e95.
[19] Ahmadi P, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Performance assessment and optimization of a
novel integrated multigeneration system for residential buildings. Energy
Build 2013;67:568e78.
[20] Calm JM, Hourahan GC. Refrigerant data summary. Eng Syst 2001;18(11):
74e88.
[21] Wang J, et al. A new combined cooling, heating and power system driven by
solar energy. Renew Energy 2009;34(12):2780e8.
[22] Mohammadkhani F, et al. Exergoeconomic assessment and parametric study
of a gas turbine-modular helium reactor combined with two organic rankine
cycles. Energy 2014;65:533e43.
[23] Hosseini M, Dincer I, Rosen MA. Steam and air fed biomass gasification:
comparisons based on energy and exergy. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2012;37(21):
16446e52.
[24] Ioroi T, et al. Thin film electrocatalyst layer for unitized regenerative polymer
electrolyte fuel cells. J Power Sources 2002;112(2):583e7.
[25] Ni M, Leung MK, Leung DY. Energy and exergy analysis of hydrogen pro-
duction by a proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzer plant. Energy
Convers Manag 2008;49(10):2748e56.
[26] Springer TE, Zawodzinski T, Gottesfeld S. Polymer electrolyte fuel cell model.
J Electrochem Soc 1991;138(8):2334e42.
[27] Santarelli M, Torchio M. Experimental analysis of the effects of the operating
variables on the performance of a single PEMFC. Energy Convers Manag
2007;48(1):40e51.
[28] Gurau V, Barbir F, Liu H. An analytical solution of a half-cell Model for PEM
fuel cells. J Electrochem Soc 2000;147(7):2468e77.
[29] Zainal Z, et al. Prediction of performance of a downdraft gasifier using equi-
librium modeling for different biomass materials. Energy Convers Manag
2001;42(12):1499e515.
[30] Soltani S, et al. Thermodynamic analyses of an externally fired gas turbine
combined cycle integrated with a biomass gasification plant. Energy Convers
Manag 2013;70:107e15.
[31] Gholamian E, Mahmoudi S, Zare V. Proposal, exergy analysis and optimization
of a new biomass-based cogeneration system. Appl Therm Eng 2016;93:
223e35.
[32] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G. Thermal design and optimization. John Wiley & Sons;
1996.
[33] Ptasinski KJ, Prins MJ, Pierik A. Exergetic evaluation of biomass gasification.
Energy 2007;32(4):568e74.
[34] Kotas TJ. The exergy method of thermal plant analysis. Elsevier; 2013.
[35] Yari M, et al. A comparative study of two SOFC based cogeneration systems
fed by municipal solid waste by means of either the gasifier or digester. En-
ergy 2016;114:586e602.
[36] Pirkandi J, et al. Simulation and multi-objective optimization of a combined
heat and power (CHP) system integrated with low-energy buildings. J Build
Eng 2016;5:13e23.
[37] Cheddie DF, Murray R. Thermo-economic modeling of a solid oxide fuel cell/
gas turbine power plant with semi-direct coupling and anode recycling. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(20):11208e15.
[38] Meyer L, et al. Exergoenvironmental analysis for evaluation of the environ-
mental impact of energy conversion systems. Energy 2009;34(1):75e89.
[39] Boyano A, et al. Exergoenvironmental analysis of a steam methane reforming
process for hydrogen production. Energy 2011;36(4):2202e14.
[40] Deb K. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, vol. 16.
John Wiley & Sons; 2001.
[41] Deb K, et al. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE
Trans Evol Comput 2002;6(2):182e97.
[42] Yu P-L. Multiple-criteria decision making: concepts, techniques, and exten-
sionsvol. 30. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
[43] Khorasaninejad E, Hajabdollahi H. Thermo-economic and environmental
optimization of solar assisted heat pump by using multi-objective particle
swam algorithm. Energy 2014;72:680e90.
[44] Ahmadi MH, et al. Multi-objective thermodynamic-based optimization of
output power of Solar Dish-Stirling engine by implementing an evolutionary
algorithm. Energy Convers Manag 2013;75:438e45.
[45] Sayyaadi H, Ahmadi MH, Dehghani S. Optimal design of a solar-driven heat
engine based on thermal and ecological criteria. J Energy Eng 2014;141(3):
04014012.
[46] Ahmadi MH, Mohammadi AH, Pourkiaei SM. Optimisation of the thermody-
namic performance of the Stirling engine. Int J Ambient Energy 2016;37(2):
149e61.
[47] Ahmadi MH, et al. Application of the multi-objective optimization method for
designing a powered Stirling heat engine: design with maximized power,
thermal efficiency and minimized pressure loss. Renew Energy 2013;60:
313e22.
[48] Alauddin ZAZ. Performance and characteristics of a biomass gasifier system.
Cardiff: University of Wales; 1996.